Case Details: Piramal Finance Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 14 (Bombay)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.
-
Madhur Agrawal, Adv. & J.D.Mistri, Sr. Adv. for the Petitioner.
-
Ms Dhanlaksmi S. Krishna Iyer, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner had filed an application for a stay of recovery of the outstanding demand before the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The Tribunal granted the petitioner a conditional stay. The Tribunal directed that the refund be adjusted to the extent of 20% of the outstanding demand for the Assessment Year 2020-21.
Despite the explicit terms of the Tribunal’s Order, the AO adjusted the entire refund due to the Petitioner for the Assessment Year 2005-06 against the outstanding demand for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The petitioner filed a writ petition to the Bombay High Court against the adjustment of the refund.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the AO’s action in violating the said order was clearly illegal. The Tribunal had not given any valid reason for refusing to direct the Respondents to refund the illegal adjustment in the refund for the Assessment Year 2005-06, in response to the demand for the Assessment Year 2020-21. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal to direct the Respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 28,55,26,240/- for Assessment Year 2005-06, along with interest as per law.
The post Illegal Refund Adjustment Against Stay Order | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
